Posted on 02/25/2006 4:21:24 PM PST by SwordofTruth
On Sunday, the Australian government issued the following alert to its citizens: "We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in the United Arab Emirates because of the high threat of terrorist attack. We continue to receive reports that terrorists are planning attacks against Western interests in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Commercial and public areas frequented by foreigners are possible terrorist targets."
The United States has approved a business deal that would turn over the operation of six major American ports to a company that is owned by the UAE, the very country Australians are to be wary of visiting. The obvious question: If it is dangerous for an Australian to travel to the UAE because of terrorism, isn’t it even more dangerous for a company owned by the UAE to own the rights to American ports where terror might be directly, or indirectly, imported?
There have been some dumb decisions since the United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, including the "welcoming" of radical Muslim groups, mosques and schools that seek by their preaching and teaching to influence U.S. foreign policy and undermine the nation. But the decision to sell port operations in New York, Newark-Port Elizabeth, Baltimore, Miami, Philadelphia and New Orleans to a company owned by the UAE may be the dumbest of all.
Security experts repeatedly have said American ports are poorly protected. Each year, approximately 9 million cargo containers enter the United States through its ports. Repeated calls to improve port security have gone mostly unheeded.
In supporting the sale decision by a little-known interagency panel called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, the Bush administration dismissed security concerns. National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said the sale of the ports for $6.8 billion to Dubai Ports World was "rigorously reviewed" by the committee, which, he said, considers security threats when foreign companies seek to buy or invest in American industry. Apparently, money talked louder than common sense.
In a rare display of bipartisanship, congressional Republicans and Democrats are forging an alliance to reverse the decision. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, has announced plans for her Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs to hold hearings. Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Frank Lautenberg, DN.J., who are members of Collins’ committee, have raised concerns. New York’s Democratic senators, Charles Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton have also objected to the sale. Clinton and Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., expect to offer a bill to ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from acquiring U.S. port operations.
In the House, Reps. Chris Shays, R-Conn.; Mark Foley, R-Fla.; and Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., are among those who want to know more about the sale. In a House speech, Foley said, "The potential threat to our country is not imagined; it is real."
The UAE was used as a financial and operational base by some of the 9/11 hijackers. A New York Times editorial said the sale takes the Bush administration’s "laxness to a new level."
Members of Congress may wish to consider that the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components bound for Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan. The UAE was one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan’s legitimate government before the U.S. invasion toppled it.
The Department of Homeland Security says it is legally impossible under Committee on Foreign Investment rules to reconsider approval of the sale without evidence the Dubai company gave false information or withheld details from U.S. officials. Congress should change that law.
Last year, Congress overwhelmingly recommended against the Bush administration granting permission to a Chinese company to purchase the U.S. oil services company UNOCAL. Six years ago, when a Chinese company took control of the Panama Canal from the United States, retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Thomas H. Moorer warned of a "nuclear Pearl Harbor."
Congress must stop this sale of American ports to foreign interests and, in an era of terrorism, prevent any more potential terrorist targets from falling into the hands of those who wish to destroy us.
Cal Thomas writes for Tribune Media Services.
cal@calthomas.com
Again nopardons said a congressional committe had approved the deal last November. When I asked for a link to that you said it was all over the place and I should be embarrassed for not knowing about it. Well if that's true then I'd like a link please because to my knowledge it was only CFIUS and not Congress who went along with it.
LOL! You can't move beyond your lie.
Gee, could they make it any more difficult to know who is in charge of what and who they report to?
Not in F16's case. He's sincere. He's wrong, of course, but he is sincere. I am trying to educate him...lol.
There's nothing to look up, no secret congressional committee ever approved of this deal.
"Strengthening America's Shipyards: A Plan for Competing in the International Market" . The Clinton policy document you support.
It only matters if it matters. People make mistakes on threads all the time. They are caught, corrected, and it's over.
You can argue the facts or other people's mistakes. One is more product than the other.
I suggest you read the thread I linked.
Congress has put some stipulations on it.
Nevertheless, it has been thoroughly researched and investigated since last November.
"Strengthening America's Shipyards: A Plan for Competing in the International Market"
Don't tempt them............LOL.
You do kinda have a sexual glow. (I love smart women...I married one!)
Well, regardless of her using the word "Congressional," you should be embarassed if after this week you still didn't know that it had been thoroughly vetted, which IS what you indicated.
What you did do, is pull a SLICK WILLIE; you talked out of both sides of your mouth, slander Gen. Franks, and then tried to claim that you hadn't. Word games will NOT fly here.
This isn't D.C., you have NO idea just WHO is a member of FR, nor what and who they know; so save your imagined "insider" knowledge", for someone else.
No, what you were attempting to do, besides slandering Gen. Franks, is to impress the rest of us. You've failed miserably, on both accounts.
Nicely summed up!
Good to hear yet another intelligent media type laying out the facts!
I believe you are the one supporting their policy.
You do know about the super-secret subcommittee of acronyms, don't you? The most powerful committee in congress. Nothing gets done without them in any branch of gov't. I've heard that hats and secret handshakes are involved....but I've already said too much.
It's not about the stipulations of what CFIUS can or cannot do, it was whether Congress itself was directly involved in the decision-making process and they weren't as was claimed. But they will be shortly when they most likely overturn the deal.
Of course you did. I posted to someone other than you, didn't mention you, and yet you took my post to be about you. Lol. Try another explanation, your current try isn't credible.
As to being "scrawny and fidgety", I'm guessing that that's what YOU look like. It most assuredly doesn't describe me.
That was his guess, not mine. I voted for a double-wide, snack cake addict. Am I closer?
I cannot believe people are still repeating that lie as fact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.